WIXLIB

The Libertarian Forumhaving an autobiography of Geronimo or Crazy Horse wouldbe to the latter. The critics of this book claim that it isBonanno's goal to make himself look better than his pressclippings. Well, so what? Most, if not ALL autobiographiesare written in favor of their author, leaving little differencebetween Bonanno's and, say Kissinger's. Except I thinkBonanno was probably more honest than Kissinger-but thatwouldn't be hard.This book may be far more relevant than its author mayhave expected. In telling his own story, Bonanno tells manyothers. There is a steady and growing interest in this countryin what Joe Bonanno calls "The Tradition". While severalinteresting biographies of principal players have beenpublished, notably Meyer Lansky's, and while such decentfictional accounts as The Godfather exist, most of theliterature about "the Mafia" is pure garbage. From theValachi Papers to The Last Mafioso to the reams ofgovernment-produced drivel, most of what we have been toldabout "The radition"is false. To have this rather candiddiscourse by someone who was a "heavy hitter" from the1920's onward (I know of no other book that gives you alineage chart of the five New York families, complete withphotos) is of great value to students of this aspect of Americanhistory and sociology. No one who was as many places as JoeBonanno and was at so high a level has chosen to tell us asmuch about it. In this regard, Lalli's translation (Bonanno'sEnglish is admittedly inadequate) of Bonanno's lifestyle,principles, and reminiscences may well be as importanthistorically as Riordan's similar efforts on behalf ofTammany leader George Washington Plunkitt (Plunkitt ofTammany Hall) some 75 years ago.A Man of Honor has many passages that are of distinctinterest to Libertarians. After one recognizes, as Joe Bonannoably points out, that "Mafia" is one term for what is, to manySicilians, not a formal organization but a way of life based oncustom and tradition, it's easy t o understand how the Sicilianpeople, one of the most oppressed in history, have chosen toreact to varied but constant tyrannies. To begin with, theyhave comprehended (as most WASPs coming from a freertradition have not) that the game of government isn't on thelevel. Their response was to group around family and villagein mutual self-defense. In doing so, trade-offs weremade-such as submitting individual will to the good of thegroup. While this response would hardly be applauded byhard-core Randians, the reason for it is of obvious interest tothose of us who share a distrust in "lawful" and "legitimate"rulers. What Joe Bonanno tells us about his Sicilianheritage-family group first, allegiance to a small piece ofturf, a lack of interest in the political process as a solution toproblems-is validated by (or aids in validating) ThomasSowell's superb treatise Ethnic America. Sicilians, whenmoving to a new country, treated their new government withthe same distrust as they did the old one. In fact, they oftenfound it more baffling. As Joe Bonanno explains:. . . if people, ordinary people, didn't demandsuch services as gambling and money lending, noone would bother to supply these services . . . Itis difficult, therefore, for me to take seriouslygovernment attempts to dislodge the entrepeneurswho provide such services . . . Men of my.luttuary-l.ebruary, 1984Tradition (Family members) some of whom wereinvolved in illicit gambling operations, understoodthe human condition and provided these services,which society demanded. The naive view is tobelieve that a certain group of people, such asSicilians, somehow force these activities onsociety . . . (P.218)I think we call them victimless crimes.Other portions of the book of direct interest to Libertariansare the many accounts of the sloppy, shoddy, sleazy,unconstitutional behavior of our law enforcement "Mafia".Bonanno make a rather good case that the governmentwanted him in the slammer, and didn't care how many rules(or laws, or rights, or constitutions) they had to screw over todo it. It's easy for Libertarians to defend constitutional rightswhen the victim is a little old lady getting eminent domained,or an Amish farmer losing his livestock for non-payment ofSocial Security, or young men being drafted for some lousywar. Those are cheap, and relatively popular. Well, let's try itwhen the victim is this time someone who is supposed to beone of the biggest criminals in America. Same rights. SameConstitution. Same principles.Whatever Joe Bonanno is supposed to have done, whateverlaws he may have broken, it is glaringly apparent to me thathe is of far less danger to the rest of us than many of thelawenforcement dirt-balls and scum-bags who claim to beprotecting us while they treat such items as the Bill of Rightsas so much toilet paper. I do not, as some Libertarians have inthe past, mean this as a blanket condemnation of all of thoseinvolved in law enforcement, many of whom are decentpeople with a tough job. Let Joe Bonanno himselfdifferentiate:In discussing policemen, it is best to distinguishbetween street cops and paper cops. Street cops arethe ones who work for a living. They're out on thestreets, responding to calls, chasing criminals,settling disputes, putting their lives on the line. Aman of my Tradition can have respect for a streetcop.Then there are the paper cops, the bureaucratsof their profession. Paper cops spend most of theirtime at a desk, shuffling papers, doing research,making out reports, filing for government grantsand the like. Paper cops rarely put themselves indangerous situations. They have normal workinghours for the most part. Paper cops like to sitaround and chew the fat. They are very big onholding conferences and attending crime seminars.Of course, paper cops wouldn't be seen dead inuniform. (P. 358)The "Organized Crime" Scare of the last 20 years or so willsomeday be looked upon by rational Americans the way"Reefer Madness" is now. As an attempt to manipulate thetruth and scare the Hell out of people for the primary purposeof giving certain select government agencies more money andmore power over the lives of the rest of us. The danger to thiscountry posed by the "Mafia" is as phony as the politiciansand paper cops who promote it. This book helps make thatclear.Take it from a Piedmontese.

The Libertarian Forum-.la ulry-February,1984Crisis '83: The Council of ForeignRelations and the Libertarian Partyby Howard S. Katz"Libertarian Party nominates C.F.R. for President."These words were not the headline to come out of theLibertarian Party Natiorial Convention of 1983. They missedby a margin of 27 votes. And there hangs a tale.One week before the convention, Gene Burns, the leadingcontender for the LP's presidential nomination, withdrew,leaving an open field. Several candidates emerged, mostprominent of whom were Dave Bergland, the Party's vicepresidential nominee in 1976, and Earl Ravenal, who has beenfeatured in libertarian publications for his anti-interventionistforeign policy analyses.Ideologically these were two fine choices, although Ravenalis somewhat of an unknown quantity in economics. Theproblem was that Ravenal is a member of the Council onForeign Relations. The further problem was that a substantialminority of delegates did not understand what was wrongwith that. Ravenal was defeated, but a great many people didnot realize that nominating a member of this organizationwould seriously threaten the basic goal which the LibertarianParty was set up to achieve.I History of the Council on Foreign Relations and TilateralCommissionA generation ago, intellectual Objectivists and conservativeeconomists in the pro-liberty movement used to turn up theirnoses at crackerbarrel Birchers who ranted about a giantconspiracy centered about the Council on Foreign Relations.Conspiracy theory was not respectable.It turned out that the intellectuals were wrong. The Bircherscolored their view of this conspiracy with a right-winginterpretation, but the basic facts were true. We owe a note ofthanks to people like Pete McAlpine for making the study ofthis conspiracy intellectually respectable and to SteveZarlenga for publishing one of the definitive works on thesubject, Carroll Quigley's second conspiracy book, TheAnglo-American Conspiracy. Taking all of these thingstogether, the following facts have now emerged.In the late 19th century, a group of British conservatives,inspired by the ideology of the arch-reactionary John Ruskin,formed a secret society dedicated to the goal of Britishimperialism. England was superior, these people argued;therefore, the British way of life should be imposed on all theinferior peoples of the world (for their own good of course).The British public of the time, which tended to more liberalideas of freedom and self determination, would not havesupported this policy of imperialism openly. Therefore, thegroup had to operate in secret, that is to become a conspiracy,to further its goal.This conspiracy, like thousands of others that are hatchedeach year in the political arena, would probably have died arapid death if not for the fact that its early leader was amillionaire named Cecil Rhodes, who devoted a large share ofhis fortune to its promotion. The crucial element was itsability to control the London Times, one of the world's mostinfluential papers. This conspiracy was variously called, theRhodes group, the Round Table, Milner's Kindergarten, theCliveden set, the All Souls group, or just Us. It fomented theBoer War' as an excuse to achieve one of its goals, the Cape toCairo railway (a prelude to British control of Africa), and itregarded the loss of America as one of the worst mistakes ofBritish foreign policy (a mistake it fully intended to rectify).J. P. Morgan was the head of the American affiliate of theRound Table, and when Germany challenged the BritishEmpire in World War I, Morgan manipulated to bring theUnited States into the war on England's side. After the war,Morgan set up the Council o n Foreign Relations as a publicforum to serve as a front for his Round Table group. Its keypositions would be controlled by Round Table members, butit would also contain naive third parties and publicly holdidealistic goals.Thus, it is necessary to make a few corrections in the Birchview of the conspiracy. First, it is not a left-wing conspiracy,and there is no connection with any Bavarian I l l m i n a t i Its. founder, its ideology and its most important members were onthe extreme right.' Second, the C.F.R. itself is not theconspiracy but merely a front for it. Thus many naive andinnocent people can belong t o the C.F.R. withoutunderstanding anything about the conspiracy that controls it.Third, the goal of the conspiracy was not one-worldgovernment in the idealistic sense in which Birchers oppose it.(Although, since it wanted England to control the world, it-1. The conspiracy managed to place two of its men into toppositions, one on the English, the other on the Boer side.These two men began a series of provocations and ultimatumswhich led to war. The Boers never found out that one of theirhighest officials was an English agent. See Tragedy and Hopeby Carroll Quigley.-2.Aside from Morgan's overt war policy and his control ofThe New Republic, we have substantial evidence that heindirectly controlled much of the American press. This presspilloried anti-war congressmen and frightened them intovoting for war in April 1917. President Wilson was inMorgan's pocket. He was reelected in 1916 by running aspeace candidate and then immediately reversed his stand. Thesubmarine warfare issue (which we are still taught in school)was a smokescreen for Morgan's policies. See my book, TheWarmongers.--3. Which was probably a pro-liberty organization.--4. However, Ruskin was a socialist, common among the 19thcentury right.Puge 4

The Libertarian Forumdid favor one-world government in the imperialistic sense inwhich many conservatives favor it.) Fourth, the conspiracy isnowhere near as powerful as the Birchers make it appear. Itfailed to bring the United States back into the British Empire.It failed to conquer the world for England. In fact, it stoodhelplessly by in the late 1940s as the British left smashed theempire into little pieces. And finally, this conspiracy wasnever a top-down, authoritarian organization headed by afirm leader (a la a James Bond movie). It was an old-boynetwork of people in the same social class who used theircollege, business and class associations to good advantage,and were able to accomplish many things by theseassociations, their money and their positions.In the 1930s the U.S. Branch of the conspiracy passed outof Morgan hands and came under the control of theRockefellers. From the late '30s on, it began to have adominant influence on U.S. foreign policy. It was the EasternEstablishment in the Republican Party, and it controlled theDemocratic Party. A succession of Secretaries of State andadvisors came from C.F.R. ranks: Cordell Hull, DeanAcheson, John Foster Dulles and Henry Cabot Lodge, toname a few. Under the influence of these advisors, Presidentsabandoned traditional American anti-interventionism andfollowed a foreign policy of successive hot and cold wars invarious parts of the globe. There is a great deal of evidencethat several of these wars were deliberately provoked by theC.F.R. officials in Government (Vietnam,' possibly Korea,probably the Pacific theater of World War 11. Again, see TheWarmongers.) In 1972, a sister organization, the TrilateralCommission, was formed by David Rockefeller (C.F.R.Chairman), and from that time on the C.F.R. played a lessactive role in foreign affairs. C.F.R./Trilateral control of theAmerican media is so complete that information about theseorganizations cannot penetrate to the American people. Someprominent Trilaterals in Government in recent years havebeen: Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Paul Volcker,Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Alan Greenspan, JohnAnderson, Alan Cranston, John Glenn, George Bush, CasperWeinberger, Arthur F. Burns, I. W. Abel, George Ball, BillBrock, Hedley Donovan, Walter Heller, Lane Kirkland, PaulMcCracken, David Packard, Robert Roosa, Bill Scranton,Michael Blumenthal, Warren Christopher, Elliot Richardson,Cy Vance, Paul Warnke and Andy Young.I1 Coals and Modus OperandiWhen I questioned Earl Ravenal about his membership inthe C.F.R., he responded that the C.F.R. did not take anyideological positions. It was merely a discussion group of thetop foreign policy people in the country. As a foreign policyanalyst, it was his duty to belong. The Trilateral Commission,-5 . Upon arriving in South Vietnam, Lodge found thatPremier Diem had the Communists well in check and did notwant American troops in his country. Lodge used the CIA tooverthrow Diem and replace him with a more pliant, lesseffective leader. In the chaos, Communist strength grew untilAmerican troops were "necessary" to prevent a Communisttakeover. This was the pretext for American entry. TheRussian invasion of Afghanistan was copied from Lodge'smanipulations in Vietnam (overthrow a friendly head of statewho refused to accept your troops and replace him with amore obedient chief who would "invite " them in).Jal uary-February,1984Ravenal continued, was another matter. It did take positions,and he has refused to join this group. He felt this justified hismembership.It should be pointed out that Mr. Ravenal was incorrect inhis answer. I debated George Franklin, the TrilateralCommission's coordinator and David Rockefeller's brotherin-law, on two occasions; each time he strongly affirmed thatthe Trilateral Commission did not take positions but, like theC.F.R., was open to all views.Although the C.F.R. and the Trilateral Commission aretheoretically open to all points of view, there is a tacitunderstanding that lunatic positions, such as support for agold standard or reduction in the size of the government, arebeyond the pale. After all, the organizations must be limitedto sane people if the discussions are to be fruitful. (Which isanother way of saying that despite their non-ideological coverthese organizations are still loyal to the ideology of theirfounder, John Ruskin.)But even if we grant that the C.F.R. and Trilateralorganizations are non-ideological, citing this as an excuse forcooperating with them shows a frightening naivete. It reflectsa premise that our entire battle is ideological and thatchanging people's minds is 100% of what we have to do.To win the battle for liberty, it is necessary not only todefeat the ideas of the enemy, it is also necessary to block hisanti-liberty actions. If you are fighting the Marines, the NotreDame football team or the CIA, you must defeat them inreality; there is no contest in the ideological realm. In thesame way, the C.F.R. and the Trilateral Commission are notour ideological enemies. They are not (as organizations)expounding anti-liberty ideas. They are aiding and assitingtheir members to take anti-liberty actions. Draft boards, localboards for seizing property by eminent domain, and the I.R.S.are not ideological organizations either. But no libertariancan join one of these organizations without violating hisfundamental principles. So to justify a membership by takingthe C.F.R./Trilateral ideology (or their non-ideology, or theirpropaganda about their non-ideology) at face value verymuch misses the point.In general, a person or organization cannot be condemnedfor his (its) ideas. Even false or evil ideas can be held by error.This is unfortunate, but it is not immoral. People ororganizations must be judged on the basis of what they do,not what they say. The CIA is evil because it is engaged inlying and murdering on a wide scale, that is, because of whatit does not what it believes.In the same way, there is a long list of C.F.R. and Trilateralofficials who have lied and schemed to kill millions of people,to subvert freedom in this country (and others) and to stealbillions of dollars. I condemn these officials, and I condemnthe organizations which helped them get power.To get the flavor of these organizations, one must get asense of John Ruskin, the intellectual inspiration for thisconspiracy. Ruskin was a fervent enemy of the 19th centuryand longed t o go back to some time about the 12th, back tothe time when an armed aristocracy had reduced the majorityof the people to serfdom and when the only meaning given tothe word "rights" was "Permissions granted by the lord."Although these aristocrats armed themselves to the teeth andtrained themselves in techniques of fighting, they were not

The Libertarian ForumaJal uary-Fehruary,1984able to maintain their power completely by brute forcebecause they were outnumbered by the peasants 100 to 1.Therefore, they devoted themselves to the art of politics andbecame extemely skilled in intrigue and insider manipulation.The object was for the small elite to control the governmentwhich, in turn, controlled the people. It is this basic ideawhich motivates the members of the C.F.R. and TrilateralCommission today.Power today results from a combination of media, money,intellectuals and politicians. One function of C.F.R. andTrilateral meetings is to bring these four elements together sothat things can happen. Zbigniew Brzezinski, the intellectual,could never hope-given his anemic personality-to win anelection. But pair him with Jimmy Carter, who is as Americanas apple pie, and they are off to a start. Let Carter meetHedley Donovan, then editor-in-chief of Time Magazine: at aTrilateral Commission meeting, a d d a few wealthycontributors, and presto. Four elements, neither o

THE - Double ubertarian prum - Murray N. Rothbard, Editor A MONTHLY NEWSLETTER Val. XVIII, No. 1-2 J,ANUARY-FEBRUARY, 1984 Box 341. Madison Square Shtion,.New York, New York 10010 US-ISSN0047-4517 Bergland Campaign in High Gear On February 1, the Bergland for President campaign, ideologically sound from the very beginning, swung into